TTCam Liens =========== These liens are for the entire bundle and all collections therein. Liens may not apply or be relevant in all places. SPECIAL_NOTE ============ The final reconstructed Lucy-target ephemeris (SPK) for the Dinkinesh flyby was generated using data dependent on an SCLK kernel (version 29) that had been frozen by the project before the encounter for uplink planning purposes. Compared to later SCLK kernel versions, the version used in processing did not properly account for the drift in the spacecraft clock that occurred during the freeze period. This resulted in an ephemeris timing error of a few tenths of a second. The instrument data products included in this submission were processed using the final SPK noted above, but with a later version of the SCLK kernel (version 33) and with attitude kernels (CKs) whose pointing timings were derived directly from this later SCLK version. The net effect of all this is that there are small errors in the geometry as calculated using NAIF SPICE, and these errors are most significant, small as they are, at the time of encounter close approach. Product labels are affected to the extent they inherit geometric quantities from the data above. The instrument data product portions affected are as follows: (1) header data (keyword/value pairs) related to geometry (ALL products) (2) L’Ralph LEISA "backplane" FITS extension that contains geometry information for each frame (UDP and CDP products) (3) L’TES geometry arrays in CDP products. To mitigate the effect of the geometry timing error, the user may choose to re-calculate the SPICE information using the latest kernel set published in the Lucy SPICE archive. Note that the erroneous SPK was not published to the archive, although SCLK versions 29 and 33 were. During lien resolution, all data will be reprocessed using an updated SPK that corrects the aforementioned timing issue. The geometric reprocessing will use SPK lcy_230815_240201_240101_dinkinesh_reconstruction_final_v2.bsp, which has been delivered to NAIF and appears in the Lucy SPICE archive. Documentation ============= --> Add a document explaining the steps used in the IDL code to reproduce the calibrated data. file: document/ttcam_sis.pdf --> In section 2.3.2.2 of the SIS “The uncalibrated TTCam images are calibrated by performing a series of calibration steps resulting in a FITS 2-dimensional array data product in radiance units with the upper bound size of 2752x2004 pixels for full frame dark pixels on images, with an active area of 2592x1944…. When typical 2592x2000 pixel calibration images are read out, the gray areas are ignored in processing”. In section “If dark pixels are available in the image, the average and standard deviation of the dark values are extracted from rows 1966:1989 and columns 16:2607. --> --> The first five TTCam1 images and all five TTCam2 images were part of a standard functional test and star calibration activity for the cameras wth a size of 2592x2000 pixel. All the other image are a size of 2592x1944. With the images in this archive, we can’t reproduce the bias/dark current correction because it’s outside the size of the images. --> Typo?: “Fig. 1” in the 5th line of Sect. 2.1.1 --> Typos: In the document, Zhao & Zhou et al. (2024) are mixed. --> Minor --> --> Table of Contents: Page number is a mixture of Romans and Italics. --> --> Page 3 Sect. 2.1: TDI used without introducing its full name (and not in the acronym list) --> --> Missing “IPP” description in the main text and the acronym list --> --> 4th line of Sect. 2.3.2.2.4: different font for “input constants” --> --> Missing “R/Y” description in the Fig. 2-3 and the acronym list file: zhao_et_al_2024.xml --> Should it be TTcam instead of Ttcams PDF/A version of the TTCams calibration document. files: lucy_ttcam_cdp_users_guide_ver1.6.xml, ttcam_sis.xml, zhao_et_al_2024.xml --> Update 2024 file: ttcam_ssr.pdf --> Page 4 it’s written that the image are lossless compressed. Suggest adding that to the PDS4 XML for the data --> Table 3.2, both 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 need to be revised. Many of the PDS XML Label Class/Attribute are wrong --> There are 2 tables 3.3 --> Missing some acronym definitions file: 'calibration/collection_overview.txt' --> Suggest resolving any paper references in the body text at the end of the document. Ex: "Zhao et al. (2024)" (which there is an internal copy for) file: 'document/collection_overview.txt' --> The Documents section mentions that documents are named in one of two ways, the first descriptive, the second being based on Open Access DOI. This second is not the case for filename, nor document title. It then starts to describe what a descriptive case might be, but ends up describing a single case in detail. There is no mention of the user guide (as with other instruments). Please clarify or correct this whole paragraph. Data ==== file: collection_overview.txt --> Please add the name of the files or the date of observations that correspond to this statement: “Note that the first five TTCam1 images and all five TTCam2 images were part of a standard functional test and star calibration activity for the cameras, prior to the actual flyby observations of Dinkinesh.” file: sn194504param.txt/xml --> Better to provide at least a key equation showing the role of each coefficient. Hard to understand without looking into another document. Labels ====== --> Add the target NAIF ID if applicable. For (152830) Dinkinesh it is 920152830 (TARGETID in the FITS header). // --> Delete one of this block that you have twice in the raw data Lucy Data Processing Pipeline Lucy Science Operations Center Southwest Research Institute --> The Space Science Reviews paper is part of the document collection. Remove the citation or add a comment explaining that it is the external source of this document's paper or change it from to . --> Does the PDS4 attribute msss_cam_mh:instrument_mode_id refer to the fits header T2CAI001= 1 / camera: 1=DVR, 2=test image injection in the port IMAGE MINI-HEADER section? If yes, then replace the number by the description text if possible. --> For the first five TTCam1 images and all five TTCam2 images, which were part of a standard functional test and star calibration activity for the cameras prior to the actual flyby observations of Dinkinesh, the following PDS4 XML label attributes are inaccurate: --> --> should be Calibration, not Science. --> --> Target (in Target_Identification and geom:Geometry_Target_Identification), , should be the name of the target star, not DINKINESH. The same may be true of as well. --> --> Target should be Star, not Asteroid. --> --> Internal_Reference to DINKINESH should be removed. --> Suggest using the Small Bodies dictionary rather thna the Processing dictionary calibration files in future deliveries. --> Reference calibration files with LIDVIDs rather than LIDs. file: collection_overview.xml --> Update the date 2024-08 file: collection.xml --> Suggest the to be Lucy Terminal Tracking Cameras (TTcam) or to at least add “Lucy” to be consistent with the collection_overview.xml file --> Bundle lucy.mission is not archived yet. Be sure to archive these products and confirm LID reference. I also didn’t see it in the Lucy Mission Document collection <lid_reference>urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info</lid_reference> --> <Reference_List> < Internal_Reference >. Add LIDs and comments for the raw and partially processed data, calibration collection, document collection, overview document. --> <Primary_Result_Summary> Add <Science_Facets> for searchability. Calibration Files --> Add <Internal_reference> to the entire document collection instead of putting it in the <description>. --> Add a more specific <description> to each file to explain what is the file. You have the same generic description for all the files files: sn194504param.xml, sn194504masterflat_v1.xml, sn194503param.xml and sn194503masterflat_v1.xml --> Update Time_Coordinates or mark them as N/A. file: calibration/collection.xml --> Add LID for the CDP User's Guide document file: document/collection.xml --> Not relevant to reference ttcam sis here. Or if it, add a comment explaining why. --> The Identification_Area.title says "Lucy Terminal Tracking Camera System TTCam", which is the only time I see TTCam separate among the collection.xml files for TTCam. Is this okay? Should it be "Lucy Terminal Tracking Camera (TTCam) System"? --> Should double check the following Label Context Reference Mismatches, if they are using the correct target reference LID. Note there is always the option to not use a reference LID when none other is appropriate, or one may be created if it makes sense: --> --> "Master Flat" vs "Flat Field" (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.flat_field) [2 instances] issue: Image orientation --> Highly recommend adding the Display_2D_Image (or disp:Display_Settings) for the 'calibration/*.xml' files to make it explicity clear how the bytes are being read and where (0,0) is; currently no where is this defined, and so assumed. file: 'bundle.xml' --> The Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description says the bundle contains data from the "Tracking Camera(s)". Do you not know if it is plural or not or is this still in question? files: 'data_dinkinesh_calibrated/tt*.xml --> I see the "<unit>none</unit>". If "none" is the case, I would recommend removing the keyword. EN Review ========= lucy.ttcam:calibration *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>TTCam</name> <name>Master Flat</name> to <name>Lucy Terminal Tracking Cameras (TTCAM)</name> <name>FLAT FIELD</name> collection*.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name> <name>Lucy Mission</name> to <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy</name> collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lucy.ttcam:data_dinkinesh_calibrated *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>DINKINESH</name> to <name>(152830) Dinkinesh</name> collection*.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name> <name>Lucy Mission</name> to <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy</name> collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lucy.ttcam:data_dinkinesh_raw *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>DINKINESH</name> to <name>(152830) Dinkinesh</name> collection*.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name> <name>Lucy Mission</name> <name>TTCam</name> to <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy Terminal Tracking Cameras (TTCAM)</name> collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lucy.ttcam:document *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change <name>Lucy Spacecraft</name> <name>Lucy Mission</name> <name>Lucy Terminal Tracking Cameras (TTCams)</name> to <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy</name> <name>Lucy Terminal Tracking Cameras (TTCAM)</name> collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo - Suggestion: add lid_reference to target Global Liens ============ issue: There are no subdirectory structure, with all products placed at the root of the collection directories. --> TB: Strongly suggest adding some structure for the user that may browse the collection, so as to not overwhelm them with number of files, perhaps unrelated, mixed together. issue: Label Context Reference Mismatch --> The 'name' values associated with internal references to context objects do not match the Context_Area.*.name values as found in the context object file referenced. For targets, it is probably fine to be different if it conforms to SBN formatting. Many of these context files were provided by the Lucy mission, and so it is expected to match. Note, usages are not consistent across all bundles or even files within a bundle or collection (correct in some labels, not in others). Those unique to a particular bundle will be mentioned with that bundle. Lastly, please note that the PDS validate tool will identify all instances of these if you need a complete list of what and where. Examples common across all bundles: --> --> "Lucy Mission" vs "Lucy" (urn:nasa:pds:context:investigation:mission.lucy) --> --> "Lucy Spacecraft" vs "Lucy" (urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.lucy) --> --> "Dinkinesh" or "DINKINESH" vs "(152830) Dinkinesh" (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.152830_dinkinesh) issue: Copies of published papers in PDS --> Identification_Area.Citation_Information.doi should not be for the published paper. PDS should never produce a DOI for a paper primarly published elsewhere. --> Add to the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description the fact these papers of exact copy of open access documents. --> Add to the <Reference_List> an <external_reference> to the published paper and add a description mentioning the relation between the PDS copy and the publish copy. Ex: "Original published source of this Open Access document." --> For any other label referencing these PDS copies in their Reference_List, we should include the external paper doi reference along side the internal reference to the internal copy. issue: Reference_List references missing <comment> or <description>, or not being necessary. --> Whenever you reference a paper in a data product, please add a <description> (for external_reference) or <comment> (for internal_reference) stating very briefly why this paper is being referenced. This can be as simple as saying it is the "SSR paper" or "description of the mission". An example is where the Calibration paper is being referenced; we should add a <description>Calibration paper</description>. For internal references to data products, usually the <reference_type> is clear enough, but this is not the case when referencing documents. If the referenced paper is not considered essential to either understanding or using the product, it should not be referenced. --> --> Example: lucy.leisa/data_dinkinesh_calibrated/lei_0752129330_02298_sci_04.xml (lines 1042-1049, two references) issue: Mission Phase --> Is the mission_phase_name keyword going to be in any of the labels? Suggest adding this to the Lucy LDD, with a standard list of values to validate against. You can use the New Horizons LDD (nh:mission_phase_name) as an example. issue: Adding sb:Calibration_Information --> For the calibrated products, I see that the Reference_List includes the data_to_raw/calibration_product. You can also add this information, plus additional information for the user to the "sb:Calibration_Information". I would highly highly encourage this. files: '*/bundle.xml' --> Suggest removing PDS4 jargon, "Bundle", from Identification_Area.title and replace with "Archive" or something similar. --> Suggest clarifying in the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description that there are more than just "data products" in these bundles. There are also document products for instance; also Calibration products, though this is a usually a data product of one sort or another. --> Why does each bundle (except mission and rss) have a Reference_List that includes the mission:document, [instrument]:document (which is found within the bundle), and [instrument] SSR paper (found within the bundle)? Are these necessary for the generation of the bundle? If so, why are they not included in the collection.xml files? files: '*/*/collection.xml' --> For the Identification_Area and Citation_Information sub-area, we take these values as what we would want to use for reference and citation information for the PDS product (collection in this case), like titles, authors, editors, and abstract (pds:description). We use these to populate DOI meta data, for assigned DOIs. Please have these values reflect what you would want to see in the DOI meta data, and by consequence at the ADS. --> --> Note that first occurrences of acronyms will be spelled out with the acronym being in parentheses. Ex: "L'LORRI" => "Lucy LOng Range Reconnaissance Imager (L'LORRI)". I would recommend doing this in your bundle/collection labels, in the abstract (pds:description) and/or title. --> Suggest removing PDS4 jargon, "Collection", from Identification_Area.title --> Strongly (on verge of requiring for active missions) suggest adding Funding_Acknowledgement to Identification_Area.Citation_Information. --> <Reference_List> entries are not consistent. Please confirm these are correct. In general there is an internal reference to a copy of Levison et al. (2021) paper and an internal reference to the instrument SIS. Exceptions noted below: --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.llorri:calibration::1.0 (only lists SIS) --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.ltes:document::1.0 lists the instrument SSR paper as well --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mvic:document::1.0 lists the instrument SSR paper as well --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document::1.0 lists no references (probably correct) --> Please add to the Reference_List an internal link to the collection_overview product. files: '*/readme.txt' --> At the end of this file it suggests questions can go to "https://pds-smallbodies.astro.umd.edu/about/contact_info.shtml or pds-operator@jpl.nasa.gov". Using this url and/or email sounds like a bad idea. SBN website may move, or the pds-operator may change address. Remove contact info.